|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God's Place In Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
If evidence is as abundant as you say, surely you shouldn't have a problem presenting at least one piece. Sure, no problem. 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 The image of those skulls is a representation of the intermediates, between chimpanzee and modern human. That shows speciation quite clearly. What is your dispute with that evidence (and all the other evidence for speciation)? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It seems to me, that your reasoning is that knowlege and language goes from simple to complex ... It seems to me that that is not his reasoning, because that is not what he said.
So according to your theory, English should have come before Hebrew ... His theory may well be different from the stuff that you have made up in your head and attributed to him for no particular reason. But even if his theory was your nonsense, the proposition that English came before Hebrew would not follow from it.
Also, who is the common ancestor between man and apes? If he is only a theory, what is the evidence for him? All creatures differ a little from their parents, but what hard evidence do we have that one species or kind became another? What evidence do we have that over time mutations create new species altogether? Well, that would be genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography, the fossil record, behavioral ecology ... pretty much all of biology, in fact. If you aren't familiar with any of this stuff, perhaps your participation on these forums is somewhat precipitate. But these are questions for a different thread. Aren't you meant to be being wrong about linguistics? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. Speak for yourself. If someone thinks (for example) that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, his real reasons for thinking that may indeed "go beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere". But if he doesn't, then there is no need for such a hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, my thesis actually does not dispute the Genesis account. Evidently, according to the account, God spoke to Adam before having him name the animals. He gave him commands. Hence language came from God to begin with. So Adam's naming the animals was an extension of the language he received from God from the time he was created by God. So Adam, having heard some language, was able to add to the language, making it more complex and expressive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
So according to your theory, English should have come before Hebrew, but this is not the case. Considering English & Hebrew don't even have the same source, Your question is moot. The protolanguages which later became English & Hebrew probably date from a similar era, about 10000 years ago in different places, The proto Indo-European for English from Asia north of the Atlas mountains & the The proto Hameto-Semetic for Hebrew from Northern Africa Edited by bluescat48, : correction There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Honestly, once I make a point, I don't feel the need to argue it to death or make a rebuttal to every challenge thrown out, (especially when these challenges go off on tangents all around my point). I post what I think and I basically allow others to do the same. But this is a discussion board! If you're not interested in discussion, then why are you here?
But for all others, it is my hope that I will be able to share some points that will get them to step back and think about the real reasons they are for or against a creator. That is not really the purpose of these forums; there are many kiddie-philosophy forums on the Net where people can throw out random thoughts in the hopes of getting others to think. Here, however, the members are expected to engage one another in discussing the points that they raise, so that we can all understand one another's position. But you claim to be interested in just posting what you think and letting others do likewise in return with no intention of seriously discussing your points aside from ad nauseam repetition.
I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. I believe it has a lot to do with the way we have come to view world conditions (especially the human condition) and the way these views have impacted us emotionally- positively or negatively. Excellent! But shouldn't this concession go in the other topic, where you claimed the intellectual path to the Creator to be purely logical and rational: 'The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational.'? Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm going to take another chance and hope that you'll give a thoughtful reply to this post that will encourage discussion and understanding...
It seems to me, that your reasoning is that knowlege and language goes from simple to complex, but this is not necessarily true. The Hebrew language is older and more specific and complex than English. So according to your theory, English should have come before Hebrew, but this is not the case. Your measures of linguistic 'simplicity' and 'complexity' are unsubstantiated. That Hebrew and English both serve the functions for which they are utilized is evidence that their perceived levels of complexity have nothing to do with their evolutionary histories. Furthermore, this does not address the issue of humans acquiring Language without the intervention of the Creator. Where is your evidence that such intervention is required?
Also, who is the common ancestor between man and apes? If he is only a theory, what is the evidence for him? All creatures differ a little from their parents, but what hard evidence do we have that one species or kind became another? What evidence do we have that over time mutations create new species altogether? Do you believe yourself to be different from anyone else that exists or has ever existed? Do you count yourself as unique not only today, but through history as well? Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2724 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Goldrush.
goldrush writes: It seems to me, that your reasoning is that knowlege and language goes from simple to complex, but this is not necessarily true. Agreed. I actually said that it can and does go from simple to complex, not that it must go from simple to complex or that it can't and doesn't also do otherwise This should at least tell you that it's possible for knowledge and language to transition from simple to complex. And, if it's even possible at all, then your argument that there must have been a God to teach the first man is unsupported. So, you're going to need more than the reasoning you've laid out so far to show that a God is actually necessary. Edited by Bluejay, : added "also" for clarity -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What do I have to offer? Probably nothing to the people who are already committed to the idea that a creator does not/cannot exist (or is foolish or wrong). Since we are asking for logical arguments backed by evidence for said creator then it would appear that you are right. It is nice to see that you do realize that you are preaching to the choir.
I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. I believe it has a lot to do with the way we have come to view world conditions (especially the human condition) and the way these views have impacted us emotionally- positively or negatively. Perhaps you could explain this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
When many people say they don't believe in God b/c He is "unnecessary" due to science, it takes me back to the account in Eden. Adam, in effect, shared the very same sentiment. He thought he could be alright (even better) without God as sovereign over him. But the question is, was Adam correct? What have the millennia of recorded human history proven? Let's reexamine the concept of accurate knowledge for a moment. Science is revered by many atheists and agnostics as the true and acceptable way to attain accurate knowledge. Of course the Christian claims that God's Word contains accurate knowledge of the truth. What really is the correct view of matters? To determine that you have to examine the evidence from both sides. Through science, we have been able to discover many things about the earth, our bodies, and our health. How does the Bible compare? Though not a science textbook, Biblical references to all 3 harmonize with modern scientific discovery. It does not embrace the mistaken views held by the majority during the time of its writing, as we would expect. Consider the following examples:
Mistaken ancient Earth view #1: The earth is supported over massive animals. Ancient Biblical record: Job 26:7- God stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth upon nothing. So over 3,000 years ago, the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support. Mistaken ancient Earth view #2: The earth is a flat platform. Ancient Biblical record: Isaiah 40:22- God dwells above the "circle" of the earth. The Hebrew word "chugh" translated "circle" can also mean "sphere" which is why some translations also render it to say "globe", or "round", etc. This of course, is in agreement with the recent discovery of the earth's general round shape.This is long before Christopher Columbus or anyone in the Renaissance period made discoveries to make this view widespread. This shows that the Bible was not influenced by the erroneous, flat-earth view prevalent when it was written. Mistaken Ancient Earth view #3: the flow of rivers to oceans (water cycle) did not create overflow because an equal amount of water was falling off of the ends of the (flat) earth. Ancient Biblical record: Eccl. 1:7- "Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again". With the aid of science, we finally figured out the water cycle. The sun pumps up water in the form of vapor, which produces clouds that carry precipitation back to the rivers that flow again into the oceans. Another interesting harmonization of ancient Biblical account with modern discoveries of health and the human body is also evident upon examination. Mistaken Ancient Health View #1: according to the Egyptians Papyrus Ebers (ancient medical document) excrement is a safe, effective healing treatment for many ailments. Ancient Biblical record: At Deut. 23:13 the Israelites were directed: "When you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with [a digging instrument] and turn and cover your excrement." Though the Egyptians were using (infectious) excrement for medical treatment, the Bible directed safe disposal of sewage. Up until the 20th century, the danger of leaving excrement exposed to flies was generally not known. This resulted in the spread of serious fly-borne diseases and the death of many people. Mistaken Health View #2: It's ok not to wash your hands after handling dead bodies. Ancient Biblical record: God's law to the Israelites degrees that anyone touching a dead person became unclean and must wash himself and his garments (Numbers 19:11-22). In the 19th century, medical personnel would go directly from handling the dead to conducting examinations in the maternity ward without washing their hands. Infection was thus transferred from the dead, and many others died. Likely unknown to these fairly recent doctors, they were rejecting the ancient wisdom in the Bible. In addition to rejecting erroneous views of health, the Bible is also ahead of science in insight into the workings of the human body. Recent Health Discovery #1: Medical research has discovered that the blood-coating element vitamin K rises to an adequate level only by the 8th day of a child's life. Also, another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the 8th day than at any other time during a child's life. Ancient Biblical Record: As a sign if a covenant with Abraham, God said: "Every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised." Later this requirement was repeated to the nation of Israel (Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:2,3). No explanation was given why the "eighth" day was specified, but now we can explain. Is this a mere coincidence? It is clear that this law was given by a God who knew his creation. Recent Medical Discovery #2: There is a close alliance between mental attitude and emotions and physical health. The way we think and feel can effect the way our organs and organsystems function. Science has come to realize that lack of love is a major factor in many mental ills and other physical health problems. For example, the British medical journal "Lancet" once noted: By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and to restore the mind." In addition, a noted stress specialist, Dr. Hans Selye said: "It is not the hated person or the frustrating boss who will get ulcers, hypertensions, and heart disease. It is the one who hates or the one who permits himself to be frustrated. 'Love thy neighbor' is one of the safest bits of medical advice ever given." Ancient Biblical Record: The close connection between mental attitude and physical health was long ago referred to in the Bible. For example it says: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealously is rottenness to the bones" (Proverbs 14:30; 17:22). The Bible also kindly and wisely directs people away from damaging emotions and attitudes. "Let us walk decently," it admonishes, "not in strife or jealousy". It also counsels: "Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from you along with all badness. But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate". (Romans 13:13; Ephesians 4:31, 32) The Bible especially recommends love. Colossians 3-12:15 admonishes us to "clothe ourselves with love". Think too about the 2 greatest commandments, also referred to as the Golden Rule (Matthew 22:37-40). Also remember the Sermon on the Mount. There we are told to continue to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). So we see from all this that ancient people, no matter how ignorant of science, were in good shape as long as they were obedient to God's commands. God's commands, regardless if we understand them are not are for our benefit, even today. It is quite possible that if man had not chosen to disobey and rebel, rejecting God's sovereignty, humanity would be far more advanced than we are today. Look at how late we are in our discoveries compared to the Bible. All of this well underscores the fact God, not man or his methods, are the rightful sovereign. It also beautifully demonstrates Jesus' statement at Matthew 4:4 which is: "Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth". Edited by goldrush, : No reason given. Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm sorry but absolutely none of those examples of quote mining and taking stuff out of context shows that the authors knew anything about science or were even talking about the natural world. That is all nothing but misrepresentation, confirmation bias and word salad.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
When many people say they don't believe in God b/c He is "unnecessary" due to science, it takes me back to the account in Eden. I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God. Also, citing mythology in support of the existence of God really isn't helping your case.
So we see from all this that ancient people, no matter how ignorant of science, were in good shape as long as they were obedient to God's commands. I guess it all depends on how you define "good shape". It wasn't until the last century that infant mortality dipped below 30%. I could go on and on about the diseases that modern medicine has cured through science, not the bible. However, I think it will fall on deaf ears. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
Taq writes: I feel the real reasons for our positions on whether are not there is a creator goes beyond the purely rational or intellectual sphere. I believe it has a lot to do with the way we have come to view world conditions (especially the human condition) and the way these views have impacted us emotionally- positively or negatively. Perhaps you could explain this? Sorry for being so vague. I will try to clarify and explain things a little better. I feel that the heart of our decision to accept or reject the idea of a creator is based in our core values, the light in which we have personally come to view of ourselves, of others, our summation of world conditions, and the we feel about them.comments before
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldrush Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 61 Joined: |
jar writes: I'm sorry but absolutely none of those examples of quote mining and taking stuff out of context shows that the authors knew anything about science or were even talking about the natural world. That is all nothing but misrepresentation, confirmation bias and word salad. Is this the best you can come up with? So predictable...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
goldrush writes: jar writes: I'm sorry but absolutely none of those examples of quote mining and taking stuff out of context shows that the authors knew anything about science or were even talking about the natural world. That is all nothing but misrepresentation, confirmation bias and word salad. Is this the best you can come up with? So predictable... And so accurate. If you would like we can step through each of your examples as we have in the past when folk claimed fulfilled prophecy and examine each individually in context. If you cannot post stuff that even makes sense to a fellow Christian, how do you ever expect to convince anyone who is not already a Christian? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024